http://christianity.about.com/od/symbolspictures/ig/Christian-Symbols-Glossary/Bread-and-Wine.htm

Just in case "breading wasn't understood.

Love all that loves you:)

Peace.

LEA

God's covenant in blood, poured out in payment for mankind's sin.

What have I done wrong again?

Only the ignorance of man can not see the true meaning of life.

My kung-Fu is strong:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaajR2Wcjk

Of course interpretations may vary:)

Its your world.

Good luck.

LEA

Trav:
"You love evidence, that's "evident" from your posts. Yet, you haven't provided any for this statement [that thinking people cannot be devout believers (in a Biblical God)]. And as someone who considers myself to be both a believer and a thinker, it's offensive."

Let's start by defining our terms.
According to the OED a "thinker" is: "A person engaged in thinking; a being having the power to think. Also: a person who thinks out or devises something"--"free thought"?
And a "believer":
"One who has faith in the doctrines of religion; esp. a Christian disciple".

This is disappointing, I was hoping to find something more damning, nevertheless these terms seem to me to be mutually exclusive as modes of cognition; one thinks aggressively, independently and prospectively (this is at least my definition of a thinker), and the other imbibes passively, credulkously and yearningly.
According to these modes of cognition I don't see how you can accept the Bible's account of a jealous, vengeful, homicidal and in various other ways irrational (you don't want me to cite line and verse do you?)--indeed all too human--God, and yet claim to be a "thinker" simultaneously.
The Biblical account of God and his creation just doesn't bear thinking about!
Yet you claim to be a "thinking" Biblical fundamentalist, I take it?
How can you then interrogate, that is think about, this anthology compiled by men--or do you take it to be the literal word of God? In which case thought is surely redundant? and you are ergo not a thinker?

What is "your" definition of a thinker?

I put very little store in my thinking, and even less in empiricism; but for me, believing in some musty old text, written by men and endlessly revised and translated by men, doesn't count as thinking at all.
May I ask how you reconcile your Biblical fundamentalism and "free thought"?

Squeers,

I note with interest the sly transitions in terms being made here. We started off talking about being a "thinker" and believing in "The Biblical God" and by the end of the post you were equating this with "Free thought" and being a "Biblical Fundamentalist". Both of those phrases are heavily loaded and their meanings are themselves up for debate. I'm not obliged to do any reconciling here- you are the one with the burden of proof as you've made the claim here.

I'm happy enough with the definitions you've given- ie: "A person engaged in thinking". The first two definitions that came up on my google search were as follows: "A person who thinks deeply and seriously" (dictionary.com) and "One who devotes much time to thought or meditation" (the freedictionary.com). Any of those three will do for me, because all three fit what I had in mind- that is, my understanding concurs with all 3 of those definitions.

For someone who prides themself on being a thinker, your thoughts on this subject seem rather simplistic (as opposed to thinking deeply about the matter). For example, where is the conflict in accepting that the Bible is, in fact, an "anthology compiled by men" and yet also believing that it contains both timeless theological truths and actual history? Why is it irrational to believe that a God who is a personal agent and who valuse some kind of relationship with his creation would also at times display relational characteristics (and thus appear jealous and vengeful to our human way of thinking)?

As I said, you've made the claim here (and quite a big claim, I should add) but as far as I can see, you're making simplistic assertions rather than deep arguments.

@Runner

>>>> The slaughter of innocents is a common theme in the bible, the Q'ran, the Torah - whatever it takes to make the f&ckers believe in god.' <<<<

>> I am sure the 'insults' have cut deep Ammonite. You seem blinded by your own indecency. <<

I assume you are offended by my use of the word "f&ckers", which is a bit OTT. I should've said something like the "hapless sods" - to emphasize the degree of fear that is used to create and maintain believers.

Then, true to form, you respond with a personal insult. This is exactly what I mean by your behaviour towards others on this forum - your personal vindictiveness.

@Neutral

Thanks. I can't wait; the world will be a whole lot less violent once the fundy Christians have been taken in the 'rapture'.

"Its the end of the world as we know it, the end of the world as we know it.... and I feel fiiiine!"

Trav,

I've instigated no "sly transitions in terms", but tried to be faithful to the definitions the OED gave. This is the complete OED and so each term had other definitions and long lists of varying usage. The two definitions I cited were however the primary ones.
I suggested "free thought" to round-up the definition of what a thinker indulges. You're under no obligation to accept the term, though it seems fair and acceptable to me. Can you tell me what you're definition of a thinker is?
I accept that the expression "Biblical fundamentalist" is a phrase loaded with baggage, but in this instance it aptly says exactly what you've claimed to be: a thinker who also believes in a Biblical God.

Anyway, I've no wish to give real offence; I took this to be a light-hearted thread, which is a refreshing change after some of the heavy-going ones we get on the topic.
I stand by everything I've said, however, and still don't see how you can claim to be a "thinker" (and all that implies) and a "believer in a biblical God". Please explain?
If it's any consolation, I'm equally unimpressed with so-called "thinkers" who claim to "believe" there is "no" God, or indeed put their faith in anything they've thunk. The delight and attraction, as well as the bane, of "thinking" surely lies precisely in its endless round and its hapless indeterminacy. One stumbles across all sorts of beguiling constructions, but cannot become transfixed by any of them and remain a thinker. The essence of thinking is unrest, the prize is angst and the lesson is humility.